1787.
is, that revenue laws are of a harfher nature than any others, and neceffarily fo ; for, the devices of ingenious man, render it in difpenfable for the legiflature to meet their illicit practices with feverer penalties.
Thus, if the Sheriff has a writ againft any man, he cannot break open his door to execute it– but if liquor is fmuggled into a cellar, the law fays it is better that an individual fhould fuffer in his perfonal privileges, than that the public fhould be cheated of its duties ; and therefore allows the officer to force locks, &c. in order to make a feizure ; in the firft cafe, between citizen and citizen, a man's houfe is confidered as his caftle ; in the fecond, between the public and private character, it is no longer regarded in that facred light. We do not mean, however, to reflect on laws of this defcription – we know they are neceffary, as every fociety ftands in need at affiftance from its members. If the end can be accomplifhed without infringing the private rights of the fubject, it is fo much the better ; but, at all events, the exigencies of government muft be fatisfied. It has been faid, that, if the law is enforced as the informants contend for, the merchants will not be fafe, no foreign veffels will be fent to our ports, and, eventually , the revenue muft fail. But, neverthelefs it is requifite that fuch laws fhould be ftrictly worded, though undoubtedly, there are cafes where the conftruction of the words muft be fuch, as to prevent more injury being done than was intended. The navigation act of England fays, that goods imported as merchandize fhall be forfeited, if they do not pay a certain duty ; and the cafe in Stranger 943. is a feizure of shirts, nightgowns, and caps under this law. It was there argued that the word gowns, and caps under this law. It was there argued that the word “goods,” would certainly include thofe articles, but the Judges were of opinion that it could not be the meaning of the Legiflature to make wearing apparel fubject to forfeiture. The cafe in Bunbury is the fingle one that reaches the point before us. There the queftion arifes whether goods put on broad fecretly, and unladed without the knowledge of the captain, would occafion a confifcation ; and the Judges agreed that if it was a fmall matter, and no part of the cargo, it would not. The claimants therefore to have the benefit of this cafe fhould fhew, 1ft, That the fubject of the prefent profecution, is a fmall matter. 2dly, That it was no part of the cargo, and 3dly, that it was fmuggled without the knowledge of the captain.
1ft. Then, a ʃmall matter is an indefinite phrafe, not to be afcertained by mere words, but by the evident meaning of the Judges who ufed it ; and from that criterion if fhould feem to be a trifling thing, eafily concealed, and which might fairly efcape the notice of the captain ; but it cannot be extended to large and weightly goods, depofited in the hold of the veffel, and which then conftitute a part of her cargo. 2dly, The counfel for the informants have fuggefted, that only fuch goods as belong to the owners, or yield them a profit upon freight can be called a cargo;– whereas, in truth, the cargo is the lading of the veffel, and, though by bribery, or craft, fome ar-
